Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
Political grand standing mostly? The loudest opponents where using it to bring up issues that weren't even related to the START treaty. Granted, the administration wasn't nearly as forthcoming about all the discussions that went along with this treaty, but in the end what is binding is what was on that paper. And what is on that paper is plain as day, and not that big of a hindrance to use since almost all of our defense capabilties are ship based, or based on the west coast and Alaska, not in Montana and the Dakota's.

But that doesn't even begin to answer the question I asked you. What do YOU know that allows you to throw around comments about how this treaty shuts down all our missile defense capabilities?
You with impunity call it grandstanding. Do you have any evidence to support that claim ?Couldn't it be they have an honest fear of poor negotiations on the part of these amateurs in the White House.
After all Obama has already given away a portion of the proposed ABM system in Poland with radar systems placed in Romania, Bulgaria .

Article V of New START would prohibit both sides from converting launchers for ICBMs and SLBMs into launchers for missile defense interceptors, and vice versa .

"We have no plans to convert any additional ICBM silos. In fact, it would be less expensive to build a new silo rather than convert an old one" .Russia's larger fear is that we would further expand ABM and isolate their Nuclear strike capabilities .

SLBMs however are an entirely different matter .The giveaway there is it prohibits us from using our decommissioned SSBN bombers,as launch platforms for ABM interceptors in case of an Nuclear attack .